CC Minutes - 08/02/00 Work Session

Home Browse Search

Responding to a question from Mr. Pap~, Mr. Bj6rklund pointed to an error in the Development Criterion Table on page 14 in Exhibit C of the findings for Option 3; the table should indicate that neither the whole site or north area could be protected in perpetuity. He referred to the findings for Option 4, in particular the Protection Criteria and the change for the north area in Criterion 7 in the table on page 14 in Exhibit C. The north area subsequently met only two Protect criteria. The correction was further reflected in the Development criteria. He also pointed out that Development criterion 4 for the southwest field had been changed for Option 4 on the basis of a change in the evaluation from the reduction in impact area. Responding to a question from Mr. Meisner about next steps, Mr. Bj6rklund said that he believed that Hyundai's wetlands delineation would expire prior to the time the company could embark on construction, which could mean the company would have to redelineate wetlands. A redelineation could find a different pattern of wetlands, particularly if the delineation occurred at a different time of year and because wetlands can change over time. Any new wetlands found on the site would be undesignated wetlands, and the company would have to apply for a permit to the regulatory agencies. That permit application would also include information about how the company would address its mitigation requirements. Mr. Klein added that the east-west ditch was a protected waterway and also fell under the jurisdiction of the City's open waterway ordinance. Ms. Nathanson observed that the plan resulted in unified, continuous wetlands that provided superior habitat and wetland function values, and that would not occur if permits were processed in a piecemeal fashion by many agencies. She believed that a comprehensive approach was always the desired approach when determining what to preserve or protect. Acknowledging pressure from several constituencies about the issue, Ms. Nathanson asked if "this was the end of the story, or are we going to be asked to move the goal posts again?" Ms. Taylor said she was "amazed we're even talking about this" given Hyundai's past assertions that Phase 3 was not needed. The company had received no permission to build Phase 3. Ms. Taylor maintained that the company had repeatedly violated laws and damaged surface water. She objected that the company had attempted to have the toxic right-to-know law overturned and had sued the City over the council's changes to the enterprise zone rules. She objected to the fact that the company sought exemptions to the noise ordinance during construction. Ms. Taylor did not consider Hyundai an asset to the community. She suggested that balance was achieved when the company was granted permission to build phase 1 and 2. Ms. Taylor said that if Phase 3 was built, Hyundai would become the third largest employer in the community, and she believed that gave the firm more power to "frighten people and get whatever they want," including tax breaks. She noted that Phase 3 would receive the same tax breaks as the first phases. Ms. Taylor asked what advantage there was to the wetlands for Option 4 over Option 1. Mr. Bj6rklund did not think there was an advantage in terms of wetlands values. The wetlands impact would have to be mitigated. Option 4 would allow 5.1 acres of developable land while impacting 0.4 acres of wetlands. Ms. Taylor said that the point of the option was to allow more development. Mr. Bj6rklund said that the option would allow additional development. Mr. Lee said that it was not the council's role to use public policy to target a specific company or industry. He said that there were probably a dozen ways to lay out the map, but the option gave the company a MINUTES--Eugene City Council August 2, 2000 Page 5 Work Session